>> georgia. >> well before texas? >> texas will be reliably blue but it's going to take another generation to get there. >> so george it sooner than that? >> yes. >> questions from the audience? .. i honestly believe that if there were space on the ballot that said for the voters, call

it a boom coalition. i want them all out. if you had that i think people would punch it to a large extent. from my point of view the potentiality is there. i don't have the name, i don't have the way in which it comes together but there is a lot more togetherness with the right and left in certain areas and we think as we look at individual issues. >> we have one more question, grab your ipads that come up if they have read that may be -- >> are we publishing this? >> publishing the responses? when it comes to the recession recovery and the federal government made matters worse, made matters better, didn't matter much either way. bill, third party. >> i would like peter's ideal

candidate. i saw your cfo -- there are enough ideal ceos, real people, all of them, and we pick that person and an independent party needs a democrat to nominate someone to the left of hillary clinton, they need someone to nominate someone well to the right of our last two nominees and the leaders in the middle, and the thing that used to be the barrier which is money, the internet replace that barrier. weather has not been was a candidate, but we were saying in 2011 look at these numbers. somebody should run in the middle of this. if it is senator clinton and republican, quote, mainstream conservative like john mccain or mitt romney, each party sucks the middle out. right now, i know if you ask people would you vote for

republican, democrat or a few could would you vote for independent third party, the central lander of the country, you can look at margins but that is where we are as a country and it is the countries that would love to have an option if one existed and again going back, ross perot in 1992 created that party and filed candidates and files -- that would have had fundamental impact because it would have forced all republicans winning control of congress because those votes we inherited, they wanted to be. >> the response on the question of wonder how that would work with we went out and asked the thousand americans if that would be similar to what came out of this room. >> americans have complex feelings. the other way america works is we are the anchor for each party, democrat party is this way and people pullback, the

republican party drifts this way people pull them back but when each party wins these elections they say we have been -- we have a mandate, they want the real stuff a beach party gets to what it wants to end know, i didn't mean that far. there is a governing instant in this country that is pretty powerful. >> anyone else out here? another question from the ipad. it is asking its own question. what are the chances we have a woman president in the next election? question for both of you. >> there is only one answer obviously, that would be hillary clinton and ken hillary clinton win? the answer is of course she can. she starts out with a tremendous advantage. the last person they had was a big advantage going into an

election year and that was dead mesquite. didn't turn out well. when it comes down to its she will have a tremendous advantage with women voters, tremendous advantage with younger voters and she will have an edge vantage with minority voters. all three key to the core of the democratic party. one question, this is the one we will be looking at, people see her as competent and it goes back to barack obama, is she likable enough? she starts out in a likable position it will be interesting to see those numbers. that is the one i will be watching. >> an exit in that way. >> next question for both of you. can we get the air-conditioning turned down in here?

it is freezing. >> is that the consensus? should we turn it down? we will start a small fire in the back. >> we are glad we stimulated that answer. is there a fortune 100 ceo? must be somebody trying to get a little free advice in the audience. is there a ceo who has the fortitude to run for presidential office? >> no. i have a funny story. i have been -- i love john mccain. we had a high level within surrogate, and sarah palin would never be hired for a major company. the campaign manager goes nuts, i will fix it, i will fix it.

and john mccain. and what ceos do is massively different. ceos are like generals who live make a lousy candidates to and what they have been told for 20 with 30 years. the average ceo who despite their extraordinary gifts are just not good act the sort of give and take politics requires and negotiating with equal piers with hundreds of people to get things done. >> eisenhower? >> again, in this way he was an unusual general because what did he do? he spent world war ii being the negotiated between the allies to get something done. i love to -- when he did d-day and the credit goes to the troops and he wrote that thing, i take all responsibility, that is a powerful story about a presidency that very few people get. >> another one from the ipad.

anything from the audience? do you have a perspective on term limits? >> i do. terrible idea. i will tell you why. the theory is that gives new turnover, that is going to help. the fact of the matter is you wouldn't do it in business. if you have a good the you wanted good leader to stay in there. if you have a bad leader you want to get them out. all it does is hand to the professional lobbyists and everybody else all the power in washington. terrible idea. half the congress was elected during the obama era. i did fracking for newt gingrich in the 95 shutdown and i tell you what happened. i remember is that. very few people left in the house republican caucus and the term limit was done. it has given more power to an

elected folks. it has not worked the way people hope or desire. >> i have a question. business felt shut out of washington over the last several years, at various times villified about washington. does that change in the midterm elections? does this sentiment, the engagement of business, concerned about business priorities, does that shift in washington or are we going to see more of the same. >> i would tell you the biggest problem is confidence and at this stage we aim and measure and a poll just recently, was only for big corporations in the neighborhood of 17%, 18%, the good news is the news media was 14%. when it comes to the financial institutions it is down almost in single digits and so the idea

that somehow businesses do not listen to the american public, the american business is not listening to us so there is a lot of preparing to do on both sides. >> thank you, please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> more from the wall street journal conference with former nsa deputy director chris inglis who talked about cybersecurity, this is half an hour. [applause] >> almost afternoon. i appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues. i would like to open it up with scaring everybody all little bit.

what dangers do you worry about? >> increasingly not necessary. reading papers and talking to your friends and colleagues across the private sector. i would take four things, not entirely well understood by the public that makes use of that and therefore we still have some surprises that have creep upon us. the first thing i would say is cyberspace like the internet written large is not really this massive technology that affects us. often times that is considered another version of the motor pool, fix it, whatever technology or application we need to build to make that brazilian robust and to certain corporate purposes just do that. is a mix of technology and people in critical processes and they are so interweave did is almost impossible to tease one out from the other so can't delegate this to the i t shop and say fix and everything is connected to everything, convergence is the reality of that space so for those who think they have an off line

system or a barrier, firewall, protection, but their hearts and generally broken and there are two kinds of people, those that the essential the know they have been hacked and those who don't. the third reality in this space enticing increasingly well aware in this audience, we're storing wealth and treasure in that space. and reflect or spoke about things that live outside this space so you would move resources or reflect command plans or intellectual property secrets that were held outside and it was coordinating and largely under the influence of people saying at this moment in time i choose to take the risk pushing the secret or put my secret in the system for exchange confidence in the system and these things are stored in that space 24 hours a day and plea for weeks ago, going to go through my standard routine. i said to my children who are visiting from college go to the

bank and get some money and they said why? that is what money is. you are so not with it. money is in the internet. it is bitcoin, many have not climbed on to that. and it is not possible to secure this space and give up on the goal of securing space. why is it not possible, the things, technology in that space and the fact that we want to connect this, but generate revenue and hostile entities, and internet diplomatic rounds. and make this static we enduringly secure, we need to presume the reach, and these things are deficient by design

and defend them accordingly. it is a different approach. >> people are waiting for some future problem, a lot of discussion about cyber pearl harbor and that mrs. the fact this problem is already with us. and this insidious sapping of our strength. and the confidence of the systems to the resilience to get some fret that comes out at some point in the future. and they suffered the loss of intellectual property and think they can weather that when it becomes aware it to them because they are allowed to innovate whenever they have in the world. it is increasingly less true 20 or 30 or 50 years ago. and a competitive sense, and in

of the with the rest of us. and the slow rate is what we worry about the most. >> what type of companies are likely to be targeted? >> if you do something that has intellectual property of value to a competitor you are likely to be targeted. people who simply do this for mr. for activists who want to get a scallop, that is less and less the problem. the problem is if you are a wealthy treasure, store it in cyberspace, it will be interesting, lucrative to an adversary like 100 years ago, you all know this story. we allow you to rob banks. the fifth or sixth time, pretty simple, that is where the money is. cyber and threats loom large because we sort lot of treasure in this space. and power plants and financial

systems and traffic control systems. and place a to place be, and the resilience they might have been cyberspace, most of the production and acquisition occurs in the private sector, even coordination of transportation occurs in the private sector. they have gone so far to take all the slop out of the system, no warehouses, things that are exquisitely choreographed by cyberspace, that is a huge dependence a unique to think through being dependent on that and final processes that constitute your competitive advantage. >> more specific, capping a many years-in essay, what is the most frightening cybere.g. you ran into on wall street? what got you -- >> many of you experience this alongside the government would across 2012-13, the denial of service attacks and

infrastructure of the united states and by extension london and sydney also suffered some of this and what was surprising at that moment was the rate at which the adversary, washington post attributed this to the iranian. the u.s. government is somewhat more circumspect about naming names. the rate at which they could essentials the up the ante and scale up, telecommunications providers which provide the backbone that allows you to be centrally provide a level of service, scope and scale serve so many customers per hour per minute and prepare for something on the rate of what is called 20 gigabytes for second, someone acting services of your system a decently saying i could do that at the rate of 28 hits but just to be safe we will do 40 gigabytes in terms of the sanctuary reserve, the adversary in this case went to 60, 80, and the only thing that made that system ultimately prevail was the adversary's rate of increase was so slow and the ability of

telecommunications providers to build or shed infrastructure was so invigorated that be sensually presale but the adversary had chosen to go faster or use more stolen infrastructure those systems would have gone to a greater degree not something 3 minutes of time, hours of time but some of would have gone down hard and the telecommunications providers, what does that mean to go down hard? we don't have much experience or practice, how do you bring them that? does it come back elegantly? gracefully? lot of solid work being done to create more resilience in a robust infrastructure but very concerned about that. think about what the primary drivers are for the internet or cyberspace read large. almost never in the formative moment will security be primary consideration. it was i want to build this feature or application or exchange of this data and once i figure out how to make the data flow i'm make the user experience good and want to compress it so i can do more of

those per minute and make it so i can squeeze out the cost essentials the rendered to me for doing that and all of those things are essentials be the common drivers and economic marketplace but security was always something we said would catch up with that or self indemnify if we had some risk in this space, fraud or cyberto read we will essentially cover that by having some large slope of that curve, sufficiently steep and controlled by the adversaries, not those who build the systems but that is no longer the way we should do this. security has to be primary consideration up front. that is why it has to be aboard the shoe or coherent across the multiple facets of what it is you do with your internet or network connections. if there is an h.r. component of

business component financial component such that you might prevail in defending this system at speed and someone will outmaneuver you in that space. >> let's have the wealth and experience of the audience and go to the first audience question. >> when i have a cyber issecurity threat i think of the government as a helpful resource, entity to be avoided, work i don't think of the government? >> to i get to answer this question? >> if you want you can. how would you answer that question? >> hopefully i think by design the government should be helpful and i think that is a nice middle ground. neither in posing, burdensome regulations, a process, requirements or essentially standing off and saying this is the issue of the sending private property. let's take the case in get out earlier which is some future

morning iran gets set then determines the best way to bring the fight to the united states is too easily hit us where it hurts, essentials take on the infrastructure that underpins critical activities within the united states financial systems. is that an attack on private property or is that an attack by one nation on another? what is the role of the government? and a strategic level, coordinating level, if we are to create the brazilian systems such that we avoid the perils of having to defend our way or beat our way back out of that that the iranians have less of an interesting target, who actually encourages that? incentivizes that using governmental powers? that is not to say the private sector doesn't have the largest piece of this. 90 percentage don't, operated by the private sector. there has to be a full partnerships of the government has not seen that as helpful in this case there's an opportunity cost if not a critical flaw in our ability to make the space defensively. >> you got a pretty good race. 74% helpful resource, 26% don't think of the government, no one seems to be avoiding the

government. >> more on the corporate government relationship. what is your sense of the impact of the ed snowden disclosures at this point on american companies, business overseas, their relationship with the american government. particularly thinking of technology companies that have a stake. >> unfairly maligned and therefore injured in terms of their ability to take a global marketplace, there is not a country in the world that doesn't have what we call lawful intercept, ability when it is necessary for security purposes acquire information and telecommunications providers under the rule of law and there isn't a country in the world that does it with discipline and oversight united states does. in may of 2013 there was a report by a law firm that essentially compared all the various systems the west at least with the western world has

devised and the united states alone brings the judiciary into the mix. that said all the companies under rule of law essentially cooperated with the united states government were essentials in maligned by an exaggerated set of stories in summer of 2013. there then is this essentially response by foreign nations. in some cases because they are genuinely concerned about perhaps a relationship that places them at risk with respect to the united states government if it wasn't to be responsible in the exercise of that opportunity and in some cases may see a market for their own industries and that is useful to talk that a band from that of the. long story made short, the ed snowden revelation, the unauthorized leaks have done damage in appropriately to the private sector and they deserve, the government's assistance in establishing more reestablishing confidence that what they do they do under the rule of law for the benefit of nations, a

floral, not just the united states of america. >> to the next audience response question. revelations the nsa spying, one for business, one will have no effect on that. >> people are waiting in. talk a little bit about the interplay between the ed snowden revelations and cybersecurity there was a big push on cybersecurity legislation, where are we on that? >> spring of 2013 the united states government, full and open dialogue with chamber of commerce, private sector entities and other governments. and signing off on legislation the administration could reported essentially affecting greater collaborative relationship for public-private sector is.

and suppressing liability. and all of these parties to share cyber space making it such that we don't have to separate the threat to pretend to protect ourselves against the second occurrence. and to understand the nature of the threat to should have an ability to exchange that. and it is helpful in that regard. it would also increase something the commonality of standards. and the ed snowden affair came out because we're trying to understand whether the government was responsible player in this space, my sense, the government has been very responsible. and to get that story back on the rails in part because there is any room left on a legislative agenda to essentially consider that. in part because the private

sector and telecommunications companies in particular are smarting from the relationship they had with the government before. it is hard for the legislator on the table to hold it back from bringing to bear positive contributions to the collaborative relationship between the private sector and public sector and between disparate entities in the private sector. >> the government was saying pretty well on that one too, 19% talking about hurting the business and 81 saying i wonder if we aggregated 5 sectors or something a little different. what is your sense of the relationship between telekom and nsa? how has it changed over the last year. >> not surprisingly they have essentially said from reading sarbanes oxley or fiduciary responsibility or shareholder value and expectations of a

global customer base. and careful about making rule of law. and making sure that is right behind closed door. and confidence to those shareholders and international market place and i am doing what i should do, nothing more, nothing less, on the straight and narrow. they have been somewhat more demanding of the government with respect to transparency, somewhat more demanding in terms of the government to publicly, transparently compelled them so there been no suspicion they are doing something that is illicit or inappropriate. sometimes that looks like an adversarial relationship but sometimes feels like an adversarial relationship but i don't see it that way. they are simply trying to to do right by all the equities and stakeholders they have got and we have to help some figure this out with them and through this

problem. >> your successor talked about openness to the notion of amnesty for ed snowden. i wonder whether you think that is considered. >> he took care to say that is a personal opinion. rick is a good friend of mine and i respect his personal opinion. i don't think ed snowden deserves his day in court, he should get a day in court. is inappropriate in this society for individuals to abrogate the responsibility to speak for the whole of government. in the case of the authorities that were much discussed and much maligned in summer of 2013, what you find is an executive branch under the rule of law enacted by congress and in those particular cases fully participating judiciary determined that is the right answer for the station. across two administrations, multiple parties, disparate ideologies, on the house permanent select committee and

intelligence, and nsa, tea party and died in the war democrats. it is not an ideological issue but a hall of government issue. ed snowden had to answer for why he took upon himself to essentially take the wheel and drive the ship aground and might have a perfectly good day answer. people make that case and defend themselves and he should have his full say. >> we only have a minute left before we go to questions and answers but what is the main listen you take away from the experience of the last year with ed snowden? >> three things and i start somewhat narrowly focused on the nsa equity in this but i remind myself the nsa doesn't have an equity, lisa nation has an equity. with respect to what is the nsa does and its stake in the game, contribution to the game we talk a lot about balancing security and privacy and civil liberties. there is a third leg under the

chair that is essential which is sufficient transparency. not complete transparency because that is impossible in the intelligence world as efficient transparency so people have confidence about the first two. even before ed snowden came out, nsa had a presentation how to affect the balance. as opposed to depicting that as scales of justice where you necessarily trade privacy for security, it has to be likely to rails under a car or train car. are they not straight and true on a proper foundation giving equal fealty to each of those? no way that this could work that you could meet your constitutional obligations, transparency is the thing that has been lacking, give people confidence we got that right so the thing will be new and different, sufficient transparency by the government about what we do, how we do and not just in a national context the international context as well. >> let's open it up.

>> on the ipad which is printing out of the nsa office. that was unfair. i couldn't resist. >> you know that is a fair question. >> any questions? >> huntsman, tennis player, issued a report last year, roughly, that said maybe what we should be thinking about is giving business license liberally declined to hacked back. at least in the form of diminishing the damage that has been done, perhaps locking the data in the hackers's files that have been taken from the company or shutting down their computers in some manner. this has been described as a

vigilante is some . is there some reason. is there some reason to that in your mind as one of the arrows in our arsenal for dealing with this big problem? >> as in all things it is dangerous to pick an extreme in that regard bond say you can never defend yourself or to say you have the authority to go all the way back to the adversary. either of those is an extreme option. there are analogs to this, these -- shooting at you in your own home you have the right and responsibility of defending yourself. and across the neighbor's yard you have the responsibility to be incredibly careful about how you shoot across the neighbor's yard and someone is harassing you, you need to fleet that up to the police and let them stand in and deal with that. the same thing plays here. my concern about that taken to the extreme is what you say is this is about the defense of

private property and people can essentials hack back to defend themselves. and going across 2002, 2013, and the last point of approach are places like germany. and they unleashed the mob and said go after is that. and the second thing is even if you did get it right and you essentially said take this back to the miscreant that miscreant is a nation status someone with other authorities, capabilities in the toolkit 8 you provoke them and cross their red wine you now cross their red line and all of a sudden, you have not only created a diplomatic incident detonation on nation incident the government needs to step in and deal with a bigger mess. that said, by theory is for the case to prevail the government

has to figure out what is its role proactively and how is exercising that will so the private sector doesn't need to. in that regard we have been asking too often is who is in charge for the defense of cyberspace. >> is the government doing enough? >> what is the answer to that question? >> the government is doing what it can given what understanding there is at this point. there are many challenges in this space. i don't thing we have a strong enough understanding how it works and what the internal dependencies are. second there isn't a well-defined set of normative behavior is such that we can say to somebody you have been stealing my intellectual property, you are out of line. they might say where is it written when you put it on the internet i can't find it, read it and bring it back? i thought you wanted me to have it. that is disingenuous but there are options inside of that that are not entirely clear. we need to be clear with ourselves. how does the space work and what the dependencies? very clear about what our rules are and will be fine acceptable

or unacceptable and the consequences of that and who has got what oil and those rules need to be assigned individuals, organizations, sectors, government. i don't think we cohen said to the degree necessary. this is the domain and to itself so when something happens in cyberspace we think the right response is in cyberspace back at it. might be illegal actions require financial sanction or public shaming so within that construct, we heard last year about the conference. the hacking activity into a building, people's liberation army they were kate to 5 hacking, and take the chinese holidays off. they saw the traffic. given your construct you presented would it be in the purview of the u.s. government to shut the building down with

its own packing at tak or cyberactivity? >> depends on the nature of provocation. in the conduct of national affairs, the question of what is the necessity and in proportion to the necessity what is the right response, what is a responsible organization. and given a rendition of that, it is elegant so few weeks ago the u.s. government as opposed to hacking back against the chinese nation status and entities within the chinese nation state in dade five individuals they have found partially responsible in the theft of intellectual property. very interesting kind of application of national power. it gives the chinese and interesting situation where they say that wasn't just, now you can test the proposition. they defend those individuals and these individuals swing in the wind. what message does that send to others who may or may not work for the chinese government?

that is a surgical, elegant application of national power proportional to the challenge in this regard and there has got to be a lot more than needs to be done but we have to take steps into this space as opposed to careening into the woods at night in the dark with no headlights on. >> can we get a microphone over here? just a reminder to identify yourself. >> my question is on the cost and the level of investment. private sector spending enough currently or underspending, how quickly is that spending going to go up? may be a second part to the question, are there innovative things the public or private sector could do to band together, reduce the cost on anyone enterprise by industry

type groups or other types of innovative -- >> you would all know so i simply join this but we're spending an enormous amount of money, financial dollars on this problem already. i don't think we are spending that well. when you go to most companies and say what are you doing? what they throw up is a plethora of icons, various devices they rage at their perimeter, information technology. this massive application of band-aid after band-aid those applications are not well integrated which are shadows and essentially worm into and not taking advantage of the knowledge to the left or right, within that sector or from the government so i think the amount of dollars shouldn't go down but i am not sure the answer is an increase in the dollars, much more possible holistically to apply with dollars, defended data, not parameters, not operating systems, examine

behavior where signatures essentially have a collaborative effort that makes it such that if you suffer threat i don't need to. that is separate and apart from the competitive advantage and if you can tell, this is government policy, a crazy idea, i am being vexed by something that comes from some foreign quarter, that puts the deposition to use appropriate international abilities like learning more about that and see that up for the nation, national apparatus to do something about it but that exchange doesn't occur today so is every man for himself and the vote has a huge hole in it. >> one more minute here. that exchange doesn't happen. in part, business, the government is very cautious of what information it is willing to share and business is quite concerned that if it shares too

much with government liability faces for customer complaints about sharing data with somebody outside are too onerous to contemplate so it seems there is a standoff. >> this trends have been true. i don't know if the principal thing that held us back contributing aspects of the problem. legislation in part was going to try to resolve the second part, if you acted in good faith, shared information or took advantage of information or acted in good faith your liability would be suppressed such that it is held harmless or you get some benefit of the doubt. the government does have a tendency to restrict the free flow of information going to classifications and methods. you will hear this from j johnson this afternoon, much more aggressive and productive in figuring out how to push that information and share that information, harder and faster and harnessed within the nsa

because collecting that information to collect itself with its own systems, we know how to save a lot of money but it must be done for the national and international benefit. another big idea in this is this is a national effort no more than a private sector or public sector effort. it is international effort and the collaboration across the international boundaries. >> quick question? chris inglis, thank you very much. [applause] >> the next part of the wall street journal cfo network conference addressed economic woes. petter reserve board members answer questions about tax policy, cybersecurity and the u.s. economy. it is half an hour. >> thank you for joining us. i am used to calling you governor traskibn did you are

wearing a new title. let's talk about the economy. we had mixed signals so far. the economy contracted in the first quarter ended is picking them now, job growth seems strong but the housing market -- what is your view of having been at the fed and the treasury? what is your read on how the recovery is playing out? >> looking forward to this conversation and taking questions afterwards the economy is doing better. we are seeing indicators of lower unemployment, it better growth overall, inflation numbers moved up a little bit, but the 2% fed target, things really looking good. there is an upside to the economy. we are also seeing some things

that bear further monitoring and make us ask if the economy's recovery is a broad based one so for example the unemployment numbers while lower i still characterized by labor markets that haven't shown a complete and total recovery so we seek long-term unemployment being quite high. it is coming down somewhat but it is still much higher than we imagine it to be at this stage in our recovery. and receive a household formation. not clear whether the housing sector is participating in the growth. and the housing sector, bears continuous watching. the financial stability perspective banks much better

capitalized, and after the crisis, still wondering as to where further risks may lurk and interested in making sure the financial stability is promoted economic growth. >> i want to come back to financial stability but on growth question, the fed is predicting four five years, and getting them to present growth. and conviction two years ahead we get anything faster. >> my own view is probably i wouldn't say any of these numbers can be given with any conviction. this exercise of doing projections is like staring into the abyss. it is very difficult exercise

making projections of any sort. one thing that i do feel fairly good about is we are heading in the right direction. the growth is sustainable, it is moving in a direction we would like to see it move in. we are not at all at the teetering point near a recession or recessionary fears and that is all good. we would like to see a broader base economic recovery. >> not a lot of conviction kicking up. >> it is picking. whether it moves into double digits for high single-digit cyber wouldn't go that far. >> let's talk about tax policy. we have been reporting the last couple days about a deal between electronic and covideon. and inversion deal. and offshore company being bought by an american company, tax rate is lower offshore. how do you view deals like that.

is that ok? >> deals ideals and they can be done. this one in particular in connection with some others that have occurred as well indicate that something is probably wrong with our tax system. it is unfortunate that the amount of earnings that exist overseas have not been able to be repatriated in a way that would work for our country's economic growth. this is a signal that some kind of business tax reform should be taken quite seriously. >> what is the solution and what are the prospects of achieving it? >> in terms of the solution, i would like to see business tax reform plan that lowers corporate tax rates, spreads the base out so we essentials we

remove the loopholes and deductions and things that essentials retake people -- businesses out of the baseball we are able to lower the base and there have been good proposals and the administration put out a good proposal in 2012 that was followed by really interesting work congressman kemp did on the house side. bacchus and hatch did good work on the senate side. there is some overlap in these proposals and i would like to see some kind of work in terms of addressing the places the overlap and see if a consensus can be explored. >> we're talking about a conviction? the convictions of something like that can happen in this environment? >> it is hard. a very challenging environment. i can't make any promises in terms of how that would work out but there are areas of overlap,

that people could start to work on and deals like the deal we are seeing eyes signals in essence that reform is warranted. >> in the absence of reform do you expect to see more inversion deals like this? i acceptable to the united states government to american companies going offshore in an effort to lower -- >> they require regulatory approval to move forward shareholders approve of them. we will see more of them with complicated tax system we have an ability to maneuver through the tax system. >> we had a story in today's paper looking at individuals renouncing their united states citizenship. i don't know if you had a chance

to see it. in response to the u.s. crackdown on offshore individual tax havens what is your beat on that when americans are renouncing their citizenship, in response to the government crackdown? >> in essence there are going to be behaviors' that are affected by our tax system, the individual tax code or the corporate and business tax code and behavior's are molded, incentivized by provisions in our tax system and provisions have to be looked at carefully when they are crafted and reviewed to determine what the behavior's that willie sensually get incentivize or disincentive highest. and testament to the fact that some people are viewing the tax code as being one that they would like to prefer one from another regime and this goes to

some issues regarding harmonization of tax codes in different regimes because obviously we want to create a tax cut that doesn't create particular incentives to locate or set up transactions in the regime is. >> i want to shift the conversation to student debt which is a subject that matters to you, the subject of this panel is the outlook for economic growth and economists will tell you the key to growth is the education of the workforce. we face a conundrum right now that education is the key to advancement getting more and more expensive. you spend a lot of time looking at student debt. what is your assessment of how big this problem is, and the affected is having with young

americans? >> i can give -- more questions. and a set of balances on the balance sheet. we have $1.1 trillion of outstanding student loan balances with 40 million borrowers. those levels, while high, do represent a very sound investment fits in our country's work force and the people who live here, education is one that is considered a fantastic investment in human capital. from the perspective of the growing balance, one question i have is the extent to which these balances associated with higher levels of delinquency, higher levels of default which

are significant from the perspective of presenting head winds economic growth. you think about low household formation. and the low household formation is a function, paying off student debt. and the attainments to make query as to whether you are going to be in the mood or financial ability. and the economic growth, in the number of delinquencies and defaults, delinquencies and default on unnecessary. if they have been triggered for poor communication, income based

repayment plans. and the tap the amount of payment they make when they repay student loans. the default numbers, and we want performing loans on our country's balance sheets, not nonperforming loans. >> the white house expanded some of these income based repayment plans. government is the dominant player in the student loan, any lessons to be learned on the experiences in the housing market with fannie mae and freddie mac as the dominant guarantors of housing debt as it relates to student debt? we talk about incentives before. the government guarantees

student loans having incentive effect that need to be -- >> interesting question. of course when you extend student loan or do underwriting for student loan it is a different exercise than underwriting for mortgage, say. one reason, students will come out of school and they won't be at the peak of their earning capacity, they are going to ramp up their presumably, gradually, they are not going to be able to be in a position where they do a massive payoff of the debt immediately. the underwriting and repayment patterns are going to be different. i think you are on to something from the perspective of the serviceing lessons because if you think back to the financial crisis and the role that

mortgage servicing played in the exacerbation of the crisis cyber since you see some really interesting similarities that are also raise a lot of questions but the servicing piece on the mortgage side was one that was really not well suited for a crisis situation. so we learned in the housing context with the number of foreclosures that servicing is not -- it really had to be a high catch sort of methodical exercise that you had to go through borrower by borrower and the servicing model was not at all equipped with that. >> how does it relate? >> student loans starting to see similar kinds of servicing issues. is it a servicing model that isn't particularly well equipped for the number of student loan

borrowers we now have. these are interesting similarities and ones that we shall also explore. >> you have done a lot of work on cybersecurity. i believe. >> i haven't done a lot of it. >> would you have been looking at as it relates to the financial sector, what are the cfos in this room need to know about what they need to do to protect themselves in cybersecurity threats? >> for one, the risk of a cyberthreat is actually growing very quickly. as entry point and vulnerability is sort of prolific in our system so there are really many more vulnerabilities that exist than we might have thought before. i know companies and financial institutions are putting a lot of resources into building

defenses for those cyberthreat and those are all investments that are well spent. what we as government as an administration have to make sure we do is when we hear of threat, when we get credible information regarding threats, we should be in a position not just to protect taxpayer information and financial information at the federal level but to the extent that is relevant be able to push into irrelevant institutions so that they are aware that they may be targeted end they can then take long steps to actually act proactively to minimize the chance that the threat has become something that is damaging. >> what should the men and women in this room to? back to their office tomorrow, what steps should they take? >> make sure the c i o has a

credible plan for dealing with cyberthreats, cyberrisks. have a good sense that he is investing your company's money well in the use of cybersecurity mitigation techniques. make sure staffing of the office is done appropriately, reporting up to your board in a way that gives your boards good visibility regarding potential potential threats and make sure that there are good connections between your c i o offices and people in law enforcement so that there are good, strong, credible sort of private/public links so that you have good channels for receiving information that may -- the government may be receding. >> let's talk about another

threat. we have a couple minutes before we get to question and answer with c f os. with financial stability, the consensus of a lot of economists who looked at the financial crisis, one of the main points of weakness in the financial system was shadow finance, money-market mutual funds, for instance, after lehman brothers's collapse. lot of activity happening in a hedge fund universe that people did not understand. by some measures it looks like more activity is going into the shadow finance system. very little has been done to reform the money market mutual fund industry or try party rico funding markets. do you see activity flowing in to the shadow financial system? does it trouble you? what needs to be on top of the

agenda for this administration to address shadow financial system risk? >> risks that are emanating from try party rico, those are risks that we are aware of that the administration, through various agencies is working on proactively and is definitely thinking through what kind of litigants can be put in place to keep these kinds of instability factors from being able to transmit quickly through the system. ..

>> and to the extent that these risks exist outside the silence of the various regulators, what can this group, the fsoc, to collectively innocents to figure out how to reform or how to in essence be with risks that might be existing in between, in between the silos. i would say that the work of the fsoc is proceeding in a robust way, that it's an excellent device for actual discussing these risks. but ultimately you are right in the sense that will be individual regulators who have jurisdiction over reticular

areas of the financial system and it will be for them to determine essentially what reforms need to be put in place. >> are they moving fast enough? >> it is moving. we will put it that way. i don't know quite the pace at which it's moving. i know that they do take this issue also quite it's usually. you will remember that the fsoc did something in the mutual fund space called a 120 letter which, in essence, was a device by which the regulators talked about as a group essentially what risks they foresaw in this space, and hast the sec to come up with something that would be in essence responsive. >> all right. so our clock is red and has a bunch of zeros on it. >> we will have a few minutes for q&a. questions from the audience?

>> my question goes back -- >> identifiers a. >> with levi strauss. question goes back to the growth agenda. the optimism about growth as you look into the future. what, in your view, can the government or treasury do to propel the growth going forward, you know, because growth has been slow and a need it which is a surprise to all of us. would love to hear your perspective. >> it's an excellent question, and i think we have as a society, you know come we've made collective investments in particular areas that actually make the u.s. a very attractive investment climate but also makes the u.s. a real powerhouse for economic growth and they fall into various categories, infrastructure.

we have a strong, very strong infrastructure set of, you know, set of features in our country. i would say our human capital. and they would say our ability to innovate. and to the extent we can think of policy levers that are associated with each of those i was a potential growth engines, i think it would be kind of how i would think about in essence moving forward on a growth agenda. again, focusing on infrastructure, making sure our infrastructure is a strong, sturdy, dependable as it can be. making sure we have space in our economy for innovation and experimentation and new development. and then our human capital, and i talked a little bit about that in terms of student loan space but also thinking about worker, you know, worker development,

apprenticeship programs, things that are in essence doing more to enhance the human capital skill sets of our labor force. >> question from the ipad. what's the process by which the administration seeks and gets input from companies to determine economic policy? >> so, i can't -- >> businesses generally field ignored. >> okay, all right. in my experience i would say that a lot of input was and is continuously sought by groups all across the board. so business groups, community groups, housing groups. i'm speaking mostly from my experience which is in a financial institution space, but have always made it a habit and institutionalized in terms of

our laws come in terms of administrative procedures where you actually seek out input. very early in the policymaking process. i would say the ability to actually capture as much of the ideas out there as possible before you actually sit down, you know, craft policy which is critical to getting, to getting the policymaking job done correctly. i view it as an extraordinarily high priority to always do that outreach in very early stages of policymaking. >> that's the financial sector. the fed overseas. you're brand-new to the treasury department so this isn't fair but i'm going to do it anyway. other than the financial sector, companies here that are not in finance, how many of you have seen that kind of vigorous outreach by the government on economic policymaking?

anybody? so finance is different. because of the federal. let me ask you a different question -- >> although i can say, no longer being at the fed, my attitude would transcend financial institutions. in other words, it's not just financial institutions that i think that argument applies to. policymaking really in any dimension is really well served by talking to people who are in this space, who have relevant contributions to make, and i think a lot of work has to -- it is a heavy lift, but it's what i think is extraordinary important across the board, not just in financial institutions. >> here is someone who will take your call. i can give you her telephone number, direct line later on because we have it. will have to unfortunately leave it that. secretary raskin, jon hilsenrath, thank you very much.

[applause] >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson talks about cybersecurity and what is agencies doing to protect a government computer networks. from "the wall street journal" cfo network conference, this is a half hour. >> good afternoon, thank you so much for being our last speaker of the day and one that i think is probably very important to have last because it's going to wrap up a lot of the things we've talked about during the day. and also the fact that we have someone from the nsa here earlier and i'm hoping that our conversation can stem from the. >> right. >> so be forced to -- >> a lot of pressure being last of the day. make it interesting. >> of course. before i kind of launch into the

barrage of questions, i actually want to kind of point out that we have a wide a variety of companies and industries in this room. so for them the idea of cybersecurity is actually kind of different component. the issue of cyber theft, which is hackers going in trying to steal personal information of companies such as we saw with target and neiman marcus in december. there's the issue of cyber espionage. as we all know the justice department has just recently charged five members of a chinese military unit alleging that they hacked into u.s. companies, alternative power companies, nuclear companies to try to take their intellectual property. and then there's the issue of cyber espionage where you, there's at least the specter of

hackers could tap into our power grid, our water supply, the switching technology for our railroads. wwe're going to talk about all three of those today, but i'd like to just ask your assessment, of those three, cyber theft, cyber espionage, and what am i leaving out? oh, and cyber terrorism, the one on the grid, which would you think we've made the farthest inroads to protect ourselves? which of those three do we need to go? >> that's a good question, and it resembles a question i get a lot as the secretary of homeland security, what a threat, what a vulnerability do you worry about most? was at the top of your list, or what have we made the most progress, in what area? and it's difficult to rank them

as secretary of homeland security, i'm responsible for counterterrorism. and your question has elements of our tourism. i'm responsible for aviation security, border security, port security, maritime security, protection of our critical infrastructure, protection of our national leaders, response to hurricanes, tornadoes, natural disasters and cybersecurity which is what we're here to talk about. you were absently correct that -- absolutely correct that the cyberthreat has those different components, different character, motivated by different designs. and routinely we assess threats in the nature of all three.

so i would have to say that we need to be vigilant in both the dot gov and a dot com world. with respects to all three. and i've been impressed by the quality of the cybersecurity in a lot of major corporations around the country, but then there are others that really need to do some work. you know, through the supply chain, through the general contractor, subcontractor arrangement, i think a lot of people in this room are in a position to really help us with it. but you're correct that the nature of the cybersecurity threat has components of all three. how i would rank them, that would be difficult to do. my bottom line is we've got to be vigilant in response to all

three. >> but there's not one to keep you up at night more than others? >> so that's the question, what keeps you up at night. put it this way, i don't sleep much. there's a lot of -- in homeland to getting we've got to be vigilant in response to many different types of potential threats. it's a large department. the department of homeland security has 22 components, 240,000 employees, and cybersecurity is a big, big part of my mission. an undetermined to advance the ball on our cybersecurity strategy in this country. dhs is the federal coordinator of our efforts in the dot gov and the dot com world. so let's get into the nitty-gritty of that a little bit. >> nitty-gritty, yes. >> we will start with target. so it's my understanding that one branch of dhs was involved in identifying that target had

been hacked. >> the secret service's lead investigator. >> they contacted the fbi. the fbi contacted target, as i understand. can you talk about how exactly they determined that this had happened to target iraq's and once it was determined, how swiftly could they act? >> well, in general i've been very impressed by our capability within dhs to act quickly in terms of information sharing, in terms of law enforcement. the secret service, as you might know, historically was, originally, the secret service was financial crime, bank robbery, counterfeit currency, 25 years ago when i was a young prosecutor and a worked with the secret service i worked on the counterfeit currency case. it wasn't until 1901 that the secret service took on the nation that everybody knows about, protection of our

national leaders. but secret service traditionally has been involved in financial crimes which has evolved in very large part to cybercrime. and so the secret service has tremendous capability in this area. i've seen what are people in the secret service can do. i've seen their techniques. i understand their capabilities or it is a remarkably impressive law enforcement agency in the cybersecurity realm. and i've been impressed by their ability to work with the fbi. jim comey and i are friends, going back to when we're both young federal prosecutor in the southern district of new york 25 years ago. so there is that personal, professional connection. but i've been impressed by their ability to work together, and i'm confident that we're doing that -- confident that we're doing that when it comes to target. >> so how did they find it out?

>> you know, that's a good question. sitting you i don't know offhand how we're first alerted to the issue. you know, there are proposals kicking around in congress for a data breach notification as a legal requirement, which we are generally supportive of. i don't know how this particular investigation kicked off. >> so you talk about this, there are a couple of different things in congress but i think there are six or seven bills that have been floating around. none of which have come out of committee. one of them as i understand it was to set up some kind of portal in which companies could share that they have had some kind of data breach, what they would get in return is some kind of indemnification of liability so have an incentive to provide information to others who are in their same boat. is that what, is that the

legislation that you as secretary would like to see come out? >> yes. we are focused on a bunch of things. in my, most of my adult professional career, i'm a lawyer and i'm a corporate lawyer in the private sector. so there are one or two former clients of mine out here. so i believe i understand the thinking of the lot of boards of directors when they're faced with these kinds of issues. so from our point of view, in terms of legislative priorities, what we are interested in doing, and there's renewed interest on the hill and doing a lot of this, legal priority in terms of what dhs' authority is, vis-à-vis the dot gov world, legal clarity in terms of what the private sector me share with the government in times of a

cybersecurity -- me share. and i believe that it is appropriate for the lawmakers and does to try to devise some form of limited targeted liability of protection. centered around an event, you know, some transaction specific. i think it's appropriate at a fake if creative minds could come up with that, i do believe in general that we ought to try to help the private sector in that regard your without a very broad community without, just anything having to do with cybersecurity. >> but in the event of a certain situation, company executives could basically have a certain classified level at which the government could then feel comfortable to share information? >> i believe that we could devise through legislation a mechanism whereby a company in

the private sector responding to a cybersecurity situation has some form of limited liability in providing information to the government, or in responding in a manner that the government. so i believe that's doable. >> so speed is i believe creative legal minds could come up with something. >> so i think in the nsa session there was reference to the president's executive order from february 2013, and 1 of the things that that order was intended to do was just to increase the volume at increase the volume and the timeliness and the quality of the information that the government imparted to companies about situations in which their systems had been hacked. and after that the white house reported that it had contacted 3000 companies in the u.s. in 2013, that their systems have been hacked. a huge number.

i want to get a sense, when this happens come when the contact takes place, is there -- was the trust level? first of all your the situation of how much the government feels like it can explain about how it knows the hacking has taken place, and especially when you're talking to people who don't have a certain clearance level. and there's a situation which the company hasn't maybe is reluctant to be forthcoming, not sure what they are required to release to the government. first of all i'd like for you to talk about what you think the trust is, trust level is. i'm also going to put the question to the audience and let them kind of vote in the meantime on what they think -- we will see how much they trust you. >> well, my impression from six months on the job, talking to our cybersecurity people, because i asked this very same question, is, there are cybersecurity personnel in a lot of the large firms that we

typically deal with who they have come to know and have come to know our people, and there has been a certain level of trust. i've been impressed by the speed with which we are able to push information to them in the business community in different sectors, and i've been impressed by the speed with which they bring information to us and the fbi, relatively quickly. it seems to be, and i guess i stand to be corrected, but it seems to be an up and running relationship that works recently well but and i actually believe that is the key to our cybersecurity efforts in the dot com world. there is tremendous cybersecurity capability in the private sector here but even with the best systems in the world, we still need information sharing. we are in a position at dhs with

our birds eye view across the federal government with access to all source of intelligence to help the private sector by broadening the aperture, sharing with you what we can about what we are seeing happening across the spectrum to better protect yourself. and i send samples of that time and again just in the course of six months. >> do we have a question unavailable? know, okay. we've been hacked. and in about that before and, right? i want to ask something else. one of the other conversation pieces that's happening, it's my understanding in capitol hill is there are people who have been pressing for some kind of -- >> there's a renewed, there seems to be an interest in capitol hill on legislating in this area by the way. >> even post cantor's defeat. i do know that cybersecurity was

an issue in the primary, but there seems to be a real interest -- i've talked to saxby chambliss, for example, the and senator feinstein are interested in doing something. the senate and house homeland security committees are interested in doing something on this. i really do think people o on te hill would try to get something done this year. >> that's great but one of the things people have talked about that might need to be done is some kind of a federal standard for notification of consumers. if the target has been hit in the should be some kind of protocol in which immediately the company knows exactly if they are supposed to contact those people, how and when. >> correct. >> but there've been consumer groups have questioned whether the should be a federal standard, that they were that any kind of federal standard that might get passed in washington right now in some kind of any situation where it's so difficult to bipartisan

legislation of any kind, will be watered down. it won't be as strong as some of the notification requirements in some of the states have passed him especially california. what's your thought? should there be a federal standard? >> in general, i am supportive of data breach notification. i think given the nature of a lot of cybercrime that we see, it involves the store, the vendor, the commercial entity, but it also involves that entities customers. and so there are victims in these crimes that may be unwitting of the fact that they have been hacked. and that presents a situation where it is critical for the business to inform its customer, and so i'm generally supportive. i think it's a good idea.

i haven't studied the various state requirements out there and whether they are more rigorous, let's rigorous than what's being considered in congress, but i'm generally supportive of a data breach notification requirement. >> across the board? >> i'm -- across the board in a way that informs victims of cybercrime that they have been hacked. >> one issue you've spoken a lot about in a little closer to home in your agency is the need for homeland security to be able to attract the best and the brightest to compete. >> right. >> not only -- spent looking across -- why do you think i am here? >> one of the issues is not only are you competing with them directly, but you are also, you've been expressed concern that you're competing with them, the government, that the

pentagon can pay more for people who are experts in computer security than homeland security. and you're hoping to be able to get some kind of pay grade increase for certain jobs. talk about why you think that is necessary. >> we are in the hunt for cybersecurity talent. i want the next generation of cybersecurity talent. i've been to places like georgia tech, morehouse college where i went to school. i've been to the cyber corps door in northern louisiana. mary landrieu is told me about the great cyber talent in her state in louisiana. and i believe that we to be able to recruit people out of graduate school. recently out of school, who have it talent for cybersecurity, who are interested in coming and serving their country.

even as just a couple of years and then taking that knowledge and experience and bringing it to the firms out here from the perspective of somebody who's dealt with cybersecurity in the government. that's a different perspective than the perspective people have in the private sector. because of the access to intelligence that we have about the cybersecurity threats. so i'm on a talent search, and i believe that there are ways in which we can complement each other in th the hunt for talent. >> what do you think is unlikely he will be able to get that pay grade increase? >> i'm an optimist but i think people in congress recognized the same thing i did. >> you mentioned mary landrieu, senator from louisiana. she has expressed concerns the about what she is called an arms race within the government itself, that while we having the defense department compete for

the same people in the same pay with homeland security? what do you say to that? >> i think that each department has its own unique perspective on cybersecurity. so dod has tremendous capability. the fbi has a law enforcement mission when it comes to cyber. dhs shares in both those missions but we also have a mission of being the principal interlocutor with the private sector. and in that i believe there's great value, great experience that can be learned. and we are the coordinators across the federal government in terms of information sharing, best practices, protection of the dot gov world, across all the agencies, large and small. and so that itself is a unique

perspective. and so i think that, i think that each department has a role, and i believe that, you know, michael rogers was a friend of mine from dod, and jim comey who is a friend of mine from southern district of new york will play well together. >> which means you don't think you'll get into an arms race? >> no. i don't, i don't think in those terms but at least i'm not planning on launching one spent let's see if there's questions on the audience. i'm also looking at the ipad. questions for the secretary likes. >> secretary johnson, it's interesting that you feel that there will be progress on legislation. your first official i've heard say that. is. >> on anything? [laughter] >> you don't have to be an optimist. >> all of this available at c-span.org. we will be the last few minutes as the senate is about to gavel

in. senators will spend much of the day on spending bills. leadership wants to combined spending for fire departments into one bill, commerce, justice, transportation, housing and agriculture to eventually they will vote on whether to move the package forward but that vote has not been scheduled for a number of nominations also awaiting action. wednesday majority leader harry reid will come to the senate floor shortly with a statement on iraq. this is congressional leadership will meet with president obama later this afternoon on the situation and options and iraq. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, before the mountains were settled and the hills brought forth, your power and majesty were known.

come to our lawmakers on capitol hill today. come as light to enlighten their minds. come as truth to teach them your precepts. come as spirit to transform their hearts. come as fire to purge from them the dross of transgression. come as power to use them in your service. may your presence provide them with such patience, steadiness and encouragement, that they will be instruments for your glory.

we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 18, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume consideration of the appropriation bill brought forward by senator mikulski. we hope to begin consideration of the bill today. we are now postcloture 30 hours. we had to file cloture to get on the bill, as usual. i think we have wasted the 30 hours, but that's where we are. so, mr. president, we hope to begin consideration of the bill today, work through amendments. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. mr. president, over the last several days, the world has looked in horror as a terrorist organization isis, islamic state of iraq and syria, has swept across iraq. as we speak, they are sweeping even closer to baghdad. they are murdering, they are pillageing. their group is now positioned outside baghdad and threats

violent extremism on the capital of iraq. isis poses a threat to iraq and the surrounding region, and that is an understatement. as president obama and his advisors consider options to combat the threat, concerned members of congress -- i should say republican members of congress and their pundit cheerleaders are more interested in playing their favorite game, favorite game -- blame obama. it doesn't matter what it is, it's his fault. people's lives were in jeopardy. our military, special forces, f.b.i. captured someone who was the ringleader of the lib yeah benghazi attack. they have criticized the president for bringing this man to justice. now, yesterday i listened with

dismay when the republican leader suggested and claimed that president obama prematurely withdrew troops from iraq. think about that for a minute, mr. president. 5,500 dead americans, tens of thousands wounded, thousands and thousands of them wounded grievously. i ask my friend and the republicans that he leads, would they have preferred the u.s. stay in iraq? would they have preferred that our soldiers stayed in iraq in harm's way? is he, are they, the republicans, willing to risk more american lives? the republican leader and other republicans seem to have forgotten why president obama initiated the troop drawdown in 2009, in june. why?

the iraqis wanted us out. the iraqi government didn't want american forces to stay. is he, the republican leader and the republicans that he leads, suggesting the american service members should have risked their lives even more, even as the iraqi people were telling our military to leave? mr. president, what has been taking place in iraq is a civil war. do the republicans and the -- their leader believe that service men and women in kentucky and other 49 states across this great country should be inserted in the middle of their civil war? i don't think so. fighting between sectarian factions in iraq cost thousands of iraqi american lives over the

last decade, and it spawned a new breed of terrorism now. yet, the original invasion of iraq would have us believe that this is all president obama's fault. mr. president, think about that. is there anything that could be further from the truth? i don't think so. this is an iraqi civil war, and it's time for the iraqis to resolve it themselves. those who attack president obama for bringing our troops home from iraq are wrong and out of step with the american people. after a decade of war, the american people have had enough. american families have had enough. i do not support in any way putting our men and women in the midst of this civil war in iraq. it is not in the national security interest of our country. it's not worth the blood of the american soldiers.

it's not worth the monetary cost to the american taxpayer. so, mr. president, rather than spending hundreds and billions of dollars on the war in track, about $1.5 trillion, rather than spending more money doing that, fighting george w. bush's war, how about we use that money to rebuild our nation's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, dams, water systems, sewer systems. we have a deficit in the infrastructure of trillions of dollars. how about doing a better job of educating our children? maybe we could raise the minimum wage or give the long-term unemployed unemployment compensation. or maybe we could help men and women draw the same amount of money for doing the same work. or maybe we could fully fund the veterans administration and ensure that our veterans -- more

than a million have come back from iraq -- are getting the care they need and deserve. but instead of addressing these issues at home, they are stuck in the same game, and it's not blame obama. it's a new one, new today, yesterday, the day before. they are stuck listening to the very same neocons -- obviously, that's where the republicans are getting their information again, the same neocons who pushed us into this iraq war in the first place as they try to plunge our military in yet another foreign misadventure. and what, mr. president, is absurd is the fact that for all these years, after all these years, their suggestions haven't changed. they are in a time warp. those who are the so-called experts are so eager to commit american soldiers to another

war, why is their advice so valuable? take president bush's paul wolfowitz who some say was the architect of the war. he has accused president obama recently of not taking a strong position in iraq. wolfowitz took a strong position on iraq's sectarian violence when he stated -- listen to this bizarre statement, mr. president, and this is a quote -- "there has been none of the record in iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another." look at what he said. "there has been none of the record in iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another." mr. president, for centuries -- that's wolfowitz. how about billy -- bill crystal. not the comedian.

he's a writer. bill crystal, one of the architects of the iraq war who infamously predicted that american soldiers would be welcome as liberators in iraq and said the war would last two months. well, he was only wrong nine years and ten months. crystal also claimed there is no evidence of discord among the sunnis and shiites in iraq. no, only centuries of discord, centuries. yet, even in light of this incorrect assertion about iraq, crystal went on to say we need to have more fighting in iraq. beating the drum alongside all his neoconservative friends. this morning, there was an op-ed piece in "the wall street journal." now, who would write that? how about dick cheney, just to

remind everyone, former vice president of the united states, who clearly was the chief architect of the war. mr. president, if there is one thing that this country does not need, it's that we should be taking advice from dick cheney on wars. being on the wrong side of dick cheney is to be on the right side of history. to the architects of the iraq war who are now so eager to offer their expert analysis, i say, mr. president, thanks but no thanks. unfortunately, we have already tried it your way and it was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. now, people come back and say they can give me some examples that have been worse, and i'll listen, but for me, i know a little bit about history, this was a foreign policy blund they're would be hard to take away from being the number one foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. president obama and his military

advisors are considering their options to address isis, but putting combat troops back in iraq isn't one of them. i have no doubt that president obama and america will meet this threat head on without the advice of wolfowitz, cheney, kristol, the architects of the invasion of iraq. president obama will meet the threat with the same smart foreign policy that has been the hallmark of his administration. the president will continue to identify and protect what is truly in our national security interest, using our full array of national security tools, standing up to terrorism wherever it threatens our international stability.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: for five and a half years, the obama administration and its allies in congress have sought cover for their disastrous economic agenda with routine broadsides against an endless procession of straw men. it's hard to recall a single speech from a democratic leader in washington that didn't involve some spirited defense of a principle nobody ever challenged or some attack on a villain that doesn't exist. instead of working with us on ideas that would actually do something to alleviate the concerns and anxieties of the middle class, these democrat leaders have been blissfully content to play politics year after year after year.

instead of delivering relief, they have delivered a steady diet of bad political theater day in and day out. with the same ridiculous and predictable moral every single time -- democrats care. so vote for them and all will be well. well, if you haven't noticed, all is not well for working families in this country. four years after administrationing officials trumpeted recovery summer in june 2010, working men and women in this country are more anxious about work and family and the high cost of living. and that's to say nothing of the millions who can't find work at all. the white house knows all this. that's why they're planning to hold a summit on the topic next week. they want everyone to think they're on the case, that

they've got a plan, but what they don't seem to realize is nobody believe believes themselves -- really believes them anymore. folks have moved on. the sad truth is most of the folks i've talked to are convinced government is working against them, not for them and i don't blame them. whether it's an absurdly complicated tax code that drains people of their time and their energy or just a general sense that government programs are rigged to help the well off and the well connected an increasing number of our constituents don't even think government is capable, let alone interested in making their lives any easier these days. and that's really a shame because the obama administration's been playing politics republicans have been quietly assembling a lot of good ideas aimed at helping middle-class americans deal with the stresses of a modern economy. all of these ideas are consistent with our party's

long-standing commitment to the principles of upward mobility, shared responsibility for the weak and a strong but limited central government. and every single one of them deserves a vote. for my part i've pressed for legislation that addresses a variety of concerns of the people in my state. the family-friendly and workplace flexibility act which i introduced along with senator ayotte would enable working mosms to into a voluntary agreement with their employers where they could bank overtime compensation in the form of off siem with their families and would give families the choice, not just the employer. another bill i introduced -- will introduce today which would fix a flaw this the tax code owe men or women who work from home aren't prevented from claiming a deduction for a home office if that office includes a baby crib so they can care for their child while working. the working parents home office

act would not only help parents save on child care costs, it would help increase their earning potential by incentivizing them to create new income streams from home. for parents worried about failing schools that are underserving their children, senator kirk introduced the expanding opportunity through quality charter schools act, a bill that that would provide more and better educational choices and much-needed competition for teach earns' units that too often put their own interests above those of our children. then there's the national right to work act, a bill i've cosponsored with senator paul which would eliminate a federal rule that requires employees of certain companies to join a union or pay union dues whether they want to or not. lifting this rule would vastly increase job opportunities in my state for women and men who want to work but can't find it, especially in the area of manufacturing. the senior senator from maine has a proposal that would repeal

a senseless provision in obama that is incentivizing employers to limit their employees to 30 hours a week. the junior senator from nebraska has a bill, the workplace advancement act that would equip women in the workplace with the knowledge and tools they need to fight employer discrimination. the junior senator from florida has a bill, the raise act, that would amend the national labor relations act to allow employers to give merit-based pay increases to employees who are currently prohibited from receiving them because of outdated labor rules. and the junior senator from utah has a number of good proposals in a variety of areas. these are just a few of the really good ideas that members of my conference have put together to address the concerns and anxieties of working men and women whose wages have remained stubbornly flat during the obama years even as the cost of everything from college tuition

to health care continues to soar. there are many others including bills passed by the house that the democratic majority in the senate continues to block. but i'm really proud of the work so many of my colleagues have done in putting all this legislation together. this morning some of us will present a number of these ideas at a press conference to draw attention to the urgent needs of our constituents and the shortsightedness of the majority leader in blocking our ideas to address them. every one of these republican ideas is meant to address some common concern of working families in our country. but none of them ever get a vote because it wouldn't fit the story line washington democrats are pedaling. -- peddling. apparently senate democrats would prefer people didn't know republicans are working behind d the scenes to help make their paychecks bigger. they would rather people didn't know about these or dozens of

other ideas we have aimed at making life a little easier for middle-class americans. because if they did, they might realize there's an entirely different approach to the problems that have been plaguing this economy for years now and choose it over theirs. well, what republicans have been saying is that there are a number of things we can do right now, right now, to help folks deal with the pressures they face every day in this week. we've -- this economy. we've been talking about these ideas for years and we'll be talking about them later today. because five and a half years into the obama economy, americans are eager for some fresh thinking. they're tired of the same old big-government solutions that only make life harder and more complicated. and they're tired of a democratic controlled senate that won't allow a debate or a vote on any -- any -- of our better proposals. most of our constituents are thinking about long commutes, shrinking budgets and obscenely

high tuition and health care bills. they think about how nice it would be to have some more flexibility at work. they're frustrated with a tax code that seems to punish their efforts to make a little bit more money for the family. and they're not getting anything from the white house but empty rhetoric and more of the same. so today republicans are reminding people there's another way. while democrats have been plotting on ways to hold onto their majority, we've been listening to the concerns and anxieties of our constituents and figuring out new, creative ways to address them. it's long past time we had a real debate in this country. instead of false choice, democrats constantly present to the public between their own failed ideas and some political villain that doesn't exist, it's time americans saw the real choice before them and once they do, i think the choice will be an easy one.

on an entirely different matter, mr. president, this morning i want to comem -- this morning i want to commemorate the life and service of a brave united states marine from paducah, kentucky, master sergeant aaron c.korian. this highly accomplished marine was tragically killed on february 15, 2014, from injuries sustained during combat training operations in helmand province, afghanistan. he was 36 years old. for his service in uniform, master sergeant torian received many medals, awards and decorations including the purple

heart, the navy and marine corps achievement medal, the combat action ribbon with gold star, the sea service deployment ribbon with three stars, the global war on terrorism expeditionary medal, the global war on terrorism service medal, the afghanistan campaign medal and the good conduct medal. when he was 28, master sergeant torian was named the second marine division's noncommissioned officer of the year, a high honor. this recognizes marines who excel in physical fitness, leadership skills and tactical and technical proficiency. receiving it made aaron a role model for hundreds of n.c.o.'s in the second marine division. at the time he won the award he simply said i had to step up, i just figured that this is what i had joined the marine corps to

do and so i always did it 100%. his work ethic was remarkable, says aaron's mother, esther smith. he was a warrior as a marine, he ultimately gave everything for his country and he never put himself anything but last. he gave everything because he loved his country. born in 1977, aaron was a native of paducah and grew up in the region before his family moved to maryland. aaron graduated from thomas stone high school in waldorf, maryland, where he was a star athlete in baseball and football. he was awarded a football scholarship to the university of tennessee martin where he graduated in 2001. aaron then went on to earn a mast ear's degree in instructional leadership at tennessee tech in 2003. aaron's time at tennessee tech

was notable for a few other reasons besides his degree. he worked as a graduate assistant football coach and he also met the woman who would become his wife, shirley pomeroy. together the couple had three children. he was a great dad. and always everything his children needed him to be, said aaron's wife shirley. when he got off the plane being the best dad and the best husband were his number-one priority. aaron joined the marine corps in 2003 and was promoted to master sergeant in september of 2013. in addition to being a wonderful father and husband and an exemplary marine, he was a faithful member of college acres baptist church in wilmington, north carolina. he was a community volunteer for his local college baseball grounds crew. and also at the st. nicholas greek orthodox church annual greek festival. aaron held on to things he

believed in, faith, love and freedom. says aaron's mother. the conversation was always about how blessed he felt and how he thanked god for his beautiful family. humility was the definition of aaron. aaron's final deployment was his sixth in total. he had served two tours in iraq and four in afghanistan. at the time of his final deployment, he was assigned to the second marine special operations be a battalion, specl operations regiment, marine corps forces special operations examp based out of camp lejeune, north carolina. in late february of this year master sergeant torian was laid to rest with full military honors at arlington national cemetery. and at memorial day ceremonies in aaron's native mccracken county, kentucky just last month, county officials unveiled a commemorative street sign for master sergeant aaron

c.torian. for one year it will be displayed in front of the county courthouse and then placed permanently at a location of his family members' choosing. thank god for the blessing and allowing me to be your mom, said his mother. semper fi, always faithful. my son, you are a true american hero. we're thinking of aaron's family today as i share his story with my senate colleagues. including his wife shirley, his children, elijah, laura bela and avery, his mother and stepfather, esta and jim smith and many other beloved family members and friends. i want the family of master sergeant aaron c.torian to know just as his life of dedication and service is recognized in the mccracken county courthouse and the shrine of arlington,

so, too, it is recognized here in the united states senate. i know all of my colleagues join me in solemn reverence and gratitude for this brave young man's willingness to pledge everything for our country. and we honor his supreme sacrifice on behalf of all americans. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 4660 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 428 -- ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent that we suspend with the reading of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, we bring to the floor our fiscal year 2014 -- 2015 spending bill, but before the republican

leader leaves, as the senator from maryland, i, too, would like to join with great respect in condolences for master sergeant torian's family. for all of us who are senators that have constituent families where people have died, we all have to be in this together. you know, these are the times when we're not the republican party or the democratic party, we're not red or whriew -- blue, we've got to be red, white and blue. so fr just from this -- from this side of the aisle to the other side of the aisle, thank you for bringing to the attention of the senate this wonderful young man. we have to stand by those families. the widow, the children who are going to need an education. let's do it shoulder to shoulder. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i thank my colleague from maryland for her additional comments about this wonderful young man